Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
A development agreement did not trigger a taxable transfer under the capital gains provisions because the possession granted was only for limited development purposes and not possession in the nature contemplated by section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Tribunal also found no material to show receipt of any consideration, monetary or otherwise, in the year of execution. Applying the binding High Court ruling in Smt. Shantha Vidyasagar Annam, it held that the essential conditions for transfer under section 45 were absent, so no long-term capital gains arose in the relevant year and the addition was deleted.
A development agreement did not trigger a taxable transfer under the capital gains provisions because the possession granted was only for limited development purposes and not possession in the nature contemplated by section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Tribunal also found no material to show receipt of any consideration, monetary or otherwise, in the year of execution. Applying the binding High Court ruling in Smt. Shantha Vidyasagar Annam, it held that the essential conditions for transfer under section 45 were absent, so no long-term capital gains arose in the relevant year and the addition was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
